Monday, July 30, 2012

New University of Louisville Fight song

We mentioned this morning that the University of Louisville's Ministry of Truth was celebrating Hateweek by considering the possibility of expelling Chick-fil-A from its student cafeteria for its doubleplus ungood views on marriage, which consisted of supporting the idea of the traditional family.

Both UofL President James Ramsey and Provost Shirley Willinganz, chief members of the university's Inner Party, upset with the Oldthink expressed by the company's Dan Cathy, have decided to use their official positions to enforce their personal left-wing political views on campus and to expel any Chick-fil-A for possible Thoughtcrimes.

But there may be good news. UofL has not made a decision yet on whether they are going to kick Chick-fil-A off the campus:

Mark Hebert, a spokesman for U of L, said Monday the university has not made any decisions yet on whether it will or can terminate Chik-fil-A's contract. Willihnganz is meeting with student groups this week to determine their views on the issue, Hebert said.

That's encouraging: U of L isn't being intolerant and discriminatory yet; they're just considering whether they can be intolerant and discriminatory.

Our next step is to publicly call on the university to dump its current fight song in favor of the following:

11 comments:

I think both sides of this conflict are being intollerant, to be honest. I don't understand why it is so important to prevent gays from getting married, as I see no real reasons for this policy outside of religious ones which aren't the business of the state anyway. If individual churches don't want to marry gay people, they can make that decision, but the secular government has no right to make this kind of decision about the personal lives of its citizens. However, the state, or in this case state sponsored entities, have (for the exact same reason) absolutely no right to put sanctions on the people who hold those religious beliefs. It is a dangerous precedent to set, when a person's religious beliefs can determine their ability to function in the marketplace. You can argue that the CEO is intolerant (and I believe you are correct in that argument, KyCobb) But I would argue that as long as his intolerance doesn't infringe upon the rights of other individuals (his belief that gay marriage should be illegal is not the same thing as him actiually making that illegal) his words are protected under the bill of rights. The actions of the governors of Boston and Chicago, and what Mr Cothran claims might happen at U of L absolutely do constitute an infringement upon the rights of citizens. I believe in the rights of these people for the same reason I believe in the rights of those terrible Westboro Baptist church hooligans, or the terrifying people in the KKK. These people are allowed rights of free speech by our society, not because our society supports their viewpoint, but because we want to protect our rights to say the things we believe to be true. Without the constitution, what do you think would happen if someone like Pat Buchannon became President? We'd all be forced into his narrow worldview. The bill of rights protects the crazies, but it does so in order to protect us.

I don't have any problem with the CEO believing in traditional marriage. He goes way beyond that, donating millions of dollars of corporate money to promote government discrimination against LGBT people. I also think its hypocritical of intolerant people who promote discrimination to complain about intolerance and hypocrisy. OTOH, if Chick-fil-A isn't violating any laws, I do have concerns about a government entity such as UofL retaliating against them for exercising 1st Amendment rights, though I would certainly encourage any individual to boycott Chick-fil-A, as is our 1st Amendment right.

True enough. boycotting is a perfectly fine thing that individuals can do if they feel so inclined. While it bothers me that corporate money from Chic-fil-A's profits are going to causes that I think are very bad for this country, even that is perfectly legal in my eyes. To be honest, most private corporations donate to causes that they believe in, whether they be left or right, and if a person wants to choose where he eats based off of this information, that is their right. In my opinion, nothing Chic-fil-a can do will really do much to hurt LGBT interests in the long run, because our society is evolving. More and more everyday, the popular opinion is trending towards acceptance of the LGBT community, and a rejection of intolerance. Things like the Internet and social media are spreading ideas faster than ever, and I really will be surprised if "gay rights" will even be an issue in twenty years. Maybe I'm too much of an optimist.

I don't think you are too optimistic. Ten years ago, gay marriage wasn't even on the radar screen, and now polls show a majority of Americans support it. In 20 years, most of the people opposed to gay marriage will have died of old age.

"While it bothers me that corporate money from Chic-fil-A's profits are going to causes that I think are very bad for this country,"

Would you care to explain how prohibiting sodomites from being recognized as "married" by the government is "very bad for this country"? You think the state should reward behavior that results in less taxpayers? You can argue all day about whether or not "gay marriage" is a right, but it is quite a stretch to say that such a thing is in any way "good" for the country. It's good for sodomites, and that's about it.

That is one big load of hateful derp. It seems to me that married same-sex couples are more likely to start families than those who aren't married, through adoption and surrogacy, methods large numbers of heterosexual couples use. Also, we are supposed to be free people, not breeding stock for the state like cattle. It sounds like you want LGBT people back in the closet marrying heterosexuals to breed. How happy do you think a marriage of a homosexual and a heterosexual is? Would you want a closeted lesbian to pretend to love you and marry you?

How is it bad for the country? In my opinion, when you don't give individuals freedom, and you restrict them with government regulations, you lessen their quality of life. When you do this, it causes problems such as resentment, and enmity between groups of people, and it makes a large issue out of something that really shouldn't be an issue at all. Why shouldn't it be an issue? Because who does it really hurt when gay people get married? Nobody. It doesn't hurt anyone. Who's quality of life is improved? Gay people. So here we have a choice, do we make the decision that has no positive effects for anyone, but negative effects for a specific group, or we can make the choice that is good for a specific group, and has no negative effect on the whole of the population? It seems to me that the choice with a net positive impact on the whole of society is much better than the one the infringes upon the freedom of a small group. Does that adequately answer your question?